As Diplomacy Fails, Divide on Syria Raises Risk of Confrontations

Expectations for a Syrian military offensive against the al-Qaeda-dominated rebel enclave in Idlib Province is driving a lot of diplomatic efforts, very few of them showing any signs of consensus or success.

The main effort right now is a three-way conference in Tehran, between Russia, Iran, and Turkey. All three nations set out wildly different positions. Turkey and Iran said there was no military solution, though Iran said defeating al-Qaeda was vital, and Turkey said they would not let any offensive carried out in Idlib without them intervening against Syria. Turkey demanded a ceasefire in Idlib, while Russia rejected that idea.

Turkey’s President Erdogan has set himself out as opposed to virtually every other nation involved, with threats to intervene on all fronts. He insisted he would not allow any offensive in Idlib benefiting the Syrian “agenda,”

At the same time, Erdogan reiterated that he is “extremely annoyed” by the US policy in Syria, saying they are supporting a “terrorist organization,” meaning the Kurdish YPG. That Turkey is increasingly open in supporting the al-Qaeda rebels in Idlib appears to be considered a distinct policy.

The US isn’t involved in any talks, at least not yet, but has also staked out a position of angrily opposing the Idlib operation, saying they would view any action against al-Qaeda as an “escalation” of the war.

The situation in Idlib draws increasingly near, the conflicting stances of all these nations means that whatever happens, virtually no one will be happy. With many staking out positions threatening to intervene, this could easily fuel international confrontations.

Erdogan is probably more concerned about the U.S. putting the Turkish Lira out of its misery if he doesn’t thwart the Idlib offensive.

Iran possibly has the same concerns about the Rial. Although the Mullahs could survive a prolonged currency collapse far better than Turkey, they probably don’t want to test that as the U.S. is more or less succeeding in suppressing their economy as is.

Iran’s position is a little more complicated; the Syrian war gives them a pretext to be in Syria, where they seem to want to be; the sooner it ends the sooner they have to leave. Its also doubtful that Syria and Russia could hold ground as well as they do, and be able to focus on offensives, without Hezbollah and Iranian militias.

Canceling the JCPOA gave Trump a free hand to pressure Tehran from multiple angles, as in, twisting the arms of the many trading partners Iran’s economy desperately needs.

Still seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to remain in Syria. A test of strength against Eurasia was going to happen anyway though; losing Idlib is not like losing American Kurdistan.

Erdogan is just running his mouth again. Putin will have made clear to him previously that Turkey should stay out of the Idlib fight if Erdogan wants those S-400 systems and not more economic trouble. Turkey’s troops in the Idlib outposts had best stay inside and not get involved if they don’t want trouble from Russia.

Hibzallah will remain in Syria as long as they’re useful regardless of what Iran wants. Iran’s saying there is no military solution just means they’d like to see a negotiated one rather than more war, which they’ve said all along. Their troops will still likely be involved in reducing Idlib’s insurgents.

It’s Russia and Syria that will define the Idlib situation. Everyone else is a sideline. The talks are just to try to get the others to go along. Whether they do or not is merely a complication. Turkey is the only real threat and Putin can keep Erdogan in line. If not, Erdogan can see Russian planes bombing Turkish positions, and if he tries to do anything about it he’ll get a taste of Russian stand-off missiles. Erdogan isn’t going to risk war with Russia regardless of his territorial ambitions in Syria.

No mention of the other player in this tragic drama, Israel. They always keep their cards close to their chests and everything (nukes included) is always on the table. Their disdain for international law is so f-ing obvious that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore, even in the so-called alternative media.